Research Ethics: Beyond the Guidelines

There is international recognition of the need for sustainable research ethics committees to provide ethical review of human subjects research in developing countries, but many developing countries do not have such committees (often called 'IRBs'). Theoretical and practical uncertainties encountered by an IRB on the Caribbean island of Grenada offer insight into ethical review of research in developing countries. Theoretical uncertainties include questions about whether means of ensuring confidentiality and obtaining informed consent will be effective in local settings, and whether deviations from Western norms are justifiable. International guidelines are helpful in addressing these concerns, but are subject to interpretation. Guidelines are less helpful in practical areas like selecting members or chairs. They do not address what sort of procedures and paperwork will work in a developing country, or IRBs' relationships to governments that have no mandate for them. Experiences presented here show that IRBs in developing countries can sustainably adhere to international standards. Sustainability requires knowledge, personal commitment, and an official mandate to uphold international standards. Capacity building must therefore focus on educational programs to make developing country leaders knowledgeable about the value of international guidelines to their nations. Such knowledge is needed before people will become motivated to promote, implement, and uphold the guidelines. People in developing countries must help design bridges to help their nations put international standards into practice. The structure of such bridges may, of necessity, vary in different settings.     

Ethics committees. Research ethics: beyond the guidelines

There is international recognition of the need for sustainable research ethics committees to provide ethical review of human subjects research in developing countries, but many developing countries do not have such committees (often called 'IRBs'). Theoretical and practical uncertainties encountered by an IRB on the Caribbean island of Grenada offer insight into ethical review of research in developing countries. Theoretical uncertainties include questions about whether means of ensuring confidentiality and obtaining informed consent will be effective in local settings, and whether deviations from Western norms are justifiable. International guidelines are helpful in addressing these concerns, but are subject to interpretation. Guidelines are less helpful in practical areas like selecting members or chairs. They do not address what sort of procedures and paperwork will work in a developing country, or IRBs' relationships to governments that have no mandate for them. Experiences presented here show that IRBs in developing countries can sustainably adhere to international standards. Sustainability requires knowledge, personal commitment, and an official mandate to uphold international standards. Capacity building must therefore focus on educational programs to make developing country leaders knowledgeable about the value of international guidelines to their nations. Such knowledge is needed before people will become motivated to promote, implement, and uphold their guidelines. People in developing countries must help design bridges to help their nations put international standards into practice. The structure of such bridges may, of necessity, very in different settings.     

Justice in international clinical research

Debates about justice in international clinical research problematically conflate two quite different forms of obligation. International research ethics guidelines were intended to describe how to conduct biomedical research in a just manner at the micro or clinical level (within the researcher-participant interaction) but have come to include requirements that are clearly intended to promote justice at the global level. Ethicists have also made a variety of claims regarding what international research should contribute to global justice. This paper argues that the conflation of debates about justice at the micro and macro-levels has not only resulted in the placement of obligations upon the wrong actors but has also served to exclude relevant actors from the ethical picture. Suggestions for who should properly bear macro-level obligations of justice in international clinical research are offered. The paper further contends that, unlike researchers who violate informed consent requirements, no similar type of accountability exists for obligations of global justice, even for those obligation-bearers (incorrectly) identified by current ethics guidelines.     

Political legitimacy and research ethics

In democratic theory, “legitimacy” refers to the set of conditions that must be in place in order for the claims to authority of somebody to be deemed appropriate, and for their claims to compliance to be warranted. Though criteria of legitimacy have been elaborated in the context of democratic states, there is no reason for them not to be drawn up, with appropriate amendments, for other kinds of authority structures. This paper examines the claims to authority made over researchers by international bodies governing research ethics, who exercise their authority by the research ethics guidelines they produce (including recent revisions to the Declaration of Helsinki and CIOMS Guidelines). We argue that discussions of such bodies and sets of guidelines often elide questions of justification and questions of legitimacy, and that the grounds that might allow us to mount a strong case for the latter are at present sorely underdeveloped.     

The role of ethics in experimental marine biology and ecology

Although most countries have ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects and other sentient animals, the ethical issues associated with field research have received little attention. Most experimental marine biologists and ecologists operate without ethical guidelines or scrutiny, despite intermittent community concern about their activities. We offer suggestions on how marine biologists and ecologists can protect the future of research involving the field collection and experimental manipulation of organisms by developing mechanisms to address community concerns that such research is ethically responsible. We urge experimental marine biologists and ecologists to take pre-emptive initiatives by encouraging: (1) institutional animal ethics committees to broaden their terms of reference to include environmental ethics; (2) scientific societies to develop codes of ethics to guide the environmental research conducted by their members; (3) editorial boards of journals to require the research they publish to conform to an appropriate code of ethics, and (4) management agencies that issue permits for field research to establish an ethics committee to advise them on the ethical issues raised by specific research proposals. We conclude that the resultant administrative burden on scientists would be low but that the penalties of operating without such protection can be high.     

Ethical Issues in Limb Transplants

On one view, limb transplants cross technological frontiers but not ethical ones; the only issues to be resolved concern professional competence, under the assumption of patient autonomy. Given that the benefits of limb transplant do not outweigh the risks, however, the autonomy and rationality of the patient are not necessarily self-evident. In addition to questions of resource allocation and informed consent, limb, and particularly hand, allograft also raises important issues of personal identity and bodily integrity. We present two linked schemas for exploring ethical issues in limb transplants. The first, relying on conventional concepts in biomedical ethics, asks whether the procedure is research or therapy, whether the costs outweigh the benefits, and whether it should be up to the patient to decide. The second introduces more speculative and theoretically challenging questions, including bodily integrity, the argument from unnaturalness, and the function of the hand in expressing personal identity and intimacy. We conclude that limb transplants are not ruled out a priori , unlike some procedures that are prima facie wrong to perform, such as amputation of healthy limbs to relieve body dysmorphic disorders. However, their legitimacy is not proven by appeals to the interests of scientific research, cost-benefit, or patient autonomy.     

Clinical trials and SCID row: the ethics of phase 1 trials in the developing world

Relatively little has been written about the ethics of conducting early phase clinical trials involving subjects from the developing world. Below, I analyze ethical issues surrounding one of gene transfer's most widely praised studies conducted to date: in this study, Italian investigators recruited two subjects from the developing world who were ineligible for standard of care because of economic considerations. Though the study seems to have rendered a cure in these two subjects, it does not appear to have complied with various international guidelines that require that clinical trials conducted in the developing world be responsive to their populations' health needs. Nevertheless, policies devised to address large scale, late stage trials, such as the AZT short-course placebo trials, map somewhat awkwardly to early phase studies. I argue that interest in conducting translational research in the developing world, particularly in the context of hemophilia trials, should motivate more rigorous ethical thinking around clinical trials involving economically disadvantaged populations.     

EMPIRICAL ETHICS AS DIALOGICAL PRACTICE

In this article, we present a dialogical approach to empirical ethics, based upon hermeneutic ethics and responsive evaluation. Hermeneutic ethics regards experience as the concrete source of moral wisdom. In order to gain a good understanding of moral issues, concrete detailed experiences and perspectives need to be exchanged. Within hermeneutic ethics dialogue is seen as a vehicle for moral learning and developing normative conclusions. Dialogue stands for a specific view on moral epistemology and methodological criteria for moral inquiry. Responsive evaluation involves a structured way of setting up dialogical learning processes, by eliciting stories of participants, exchanging experiences in (homogeneous and heterogeneous) groups and drawing normative conclusions for practice. By combining these traditions we develop both a theoretical and a practical approach to empirical ethics, in which ethical issues are addressed and shaped together with stakeholders in practice. Stakeholders' experiences are not only used as a source for reflection by the ethicist; stakeholders are involved in the process of reflection and analysis, which takes place in a dialogue between participants in practice, facilitated by the ethicist. This dialogical approach to empirical ethics may give rise to questions such as: What contribution does the ethicist make? What role does ethical theory play? What is the relationship between empirical research and ethical theory in the dialogical process? In this article, these questions will be addressed by reflecting upon a project in empirical ethics that was set up in a dialogical way. The aim of this project was to develop and implement normative guidelines with and within practice, in order to improve the practice concerning coercion and compulsion in psychiatry.     

Adjusting the focus: A public health ethics approach to data research

This paper contends that a research ethics approach to the regulation of health data research is unhelpful in the era of population‐level research and big data because it results in a primary focus on consent (meta‐, broad, dynamic and/or specific consent). Two recent guidelines – the 2016 WMA Declaration of Taipei on ethical considerations regarding health databases and biobanks and the revised CIOMS International ethical guidelines for health‐related research involving humans – both focus on the growing reliance on health data for research. But as research ethics documents, they remain (to varying degrees) focused on consent and individual control of data use. Many current and future uses of health data make individual consent impractical, if not impossible. Many of the risks of secondary data use apply to communities and stakeholders rather than individual data subjects. Shifting from a research ethics perspective to a public health lens brings a different set of issues into view: how are the benefits and burdens of data use distributed, how can data research empower communities, who has legitimate decision‐making capacity? I propose that a public health ethics framework – based on public benefit, proportionality, equity, trust and accountability – provides more appropriate tools for assessing the ethical uses of health data. The main advantage of a public health approach for data research is that it is more likely to foster debate about power, justice and equity and to highlight the complexity of deciding when data use is in the public interest.     

Responsibility in the life sciences: assessing the role of professional codes

In response to threats from bioweapons, questions are being asked today in some countries about the implications and appropriateness of biological research. Many organizations and governments have suggested that bioscientists adopt what is generally referred to as a "code of conduct" to reduce the security concerns associated with their work. This article examines the potential contribution of such codes. By drawing on past lessons in other areas of professional life, it suggests some key questions, issues, and dilemmas for future consideration. As argued, attempts to establish codes must address demanding questions about their aims and audience--questions whose answers depend on potentially contentious issues regarding arms control, science, ethics, and politics.     

CRISPR Ethics: Moral Considerations for Applications of a Powerful Tool

With the emergence of CRISPR technology, targeted editing of a wide variety of genomes is no longer an abstract hypothetical, but occurs regularly. As application areas of CRISPR are exceeding beyond research and biomedical therapies, new and existing ethical concerns abound throughout the global community about the appropriate scope of the systems' use. Here we review fundamental ethical issues including the following: 1) the extent to which CRISPR use should be permitted; 2) access to CRISPR applications; 3) whether a regulatory framework(s) for clinical research involving human subjects might accommodate all types of human genome editing, including editing of the germline; and 4) whether international regulations governing inappropriate CRISPR utilization should be crafted and publicized. We conclude that moral decision making should evolve as the science of genomic engineering advances and hold that it would be reasonable for national and supranational legislatures to consider evidence-based regulation of certain CRISPR applications for the betterment of human health and progress.     

Animal Research Ethics in Africa: Is Tanzania Making Progress?

The significance of animals in research cannot be over‐emphasized. The use of animals for research and training in research centres, hospitals and schools is progressively increasing. Advances in biotechnology to improve animal productivity require animal research. Drugs being developed and new interventions or therapies being invented for cure and palliation of all sorts of animal diseases and conditions need to be tested in animals for their safety and efficacy at some stages of their development. Drugs and interventions for human use pass through a similar development process and must be tested pre‐clinically in laboratory animals before clinical trials in humans can be conducted. Therefore, animals are important players in research processes which directly and indirectly benefit animals and humans. However, questions remain as to whether these uses of animals consider the best interests of animals themselves. Various research and training institutions in Tanzania have established some guidelines on animal use, including establishing animal ethics committees. However, most institutions have not established oversight committees. In institutions where there may be guidelines and policies, there are no responsible committees or units to directly oversee if and how these guidelines and policies are enforced; thus, implementation becomes difficult or impossible. This paper endeavours to raise some issues associated with the responsible use of animals in research and training in Tanzania and highlights suggestions for improvement of deficiencies that exist in order to bridge the gap between what ought to be practised and what is practised.     

International research ethics: progress, but not perfection

To the uninitiated researcher, bioethics can be a confusing and sometimes bureaucratic process. The recent debates in international research ethics have both increased understanding of contentious issues while extending confusion to the international arena. Here, we attempt to demystify bioethics, or more specifically international research ethics, by defining ethics in the context of morality, reviewing core Western ethical principles, and highlighting challenges in international research ethics.     

Engaging Diverse Social and Cultural Worlds: Perspectives on Benefits in International Clinical Research From South African Communities

The issue of benefits in international clinical research is highly controversial. Against the background of wide recognition of the need to share benefits of research, the nature of benefits remains strongly contested. Little is known about the perspectives of research populations on this issue and the extent to which research ethics discourses and guidelines are salient to the expectations and aspirations existing on the ground. This exploratory study contributes to filling this void by examining perspectives of people in low‐income South African communities on benefits in international clinical research. Twenty‐four individuals with and without experience of being involved in clinical research participated in in‐depth interviews. Respondents felt that ancillary care should be provided to clinical research participants, while a clinical study conducted in particular community should bring better health to its members through post‐trial benefits. Respondents' perspectives were grounded in the perception that the ultimate goal of international clinical research is to improve local health. We argue that perspectives and understandings of the respondents are shaped by local moral traditions rather than clinical research specificities and require attention as valid moral claims. It is necessary to acknowledge such claims and cultural worlds from which they emerge, thus building the foundation for equal and embracing dialogue to bridge different perspectives and handle contradicting expectations.     

Trapping and marking terrestrial mammals for research: integrating ethics, performance criteria, techniques, and common sense

We propose that researchers integrate ethics, performance criteria, techniques, and common sense when developing research trapping programs and in which members of institutional animal care and use committees address these topics when evaluating research protocols. To ask questions about ethics is in the best tradition of science, and researchers must be familiar with codes of ethics and guidelines for research published by professional societies. Researchers should always work to improve research methods and to decrease the effects on research animals, if for no other reason than to minimize the chances that the methods influence the animals' behavior in ways that affect research results. Traps used in research should meet performance criteria that address state-of-the-art trapping technology and that optimize animal welfare conditions within the context of the research. The proposal includes the following criteria for traps used in research: As Criterion I, killing-traps should render >/= 70% of animals caught irreversibly unconscious in /= 70% of animals with 相似文献   

Unlocking data: Where is the key?

Health‐related data uses and data sharing have been in the spotlight for a while. Since the beginning of the big data era, massive data mining and its inherent possibilities have only increased the debate about what the limits are. Data governance is a relevant aspect addressed in ethics guidelines. In this context, the European project BRIDGE Health (BRidging Information and Data Generation for Evidence‐based Health policy and research) strove to achieve a comprehensive, integrated and sustainable EU health‐information system. One of the aims of the project was to evaluate the requirements to construct a data‐linkage infrastructure for the secure management of health information. In a blueprint provided for this infrastructure, the topics ethics and the intimately related governance occupied a whole section, where the recent ethics guidelines by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) and the World Medical Association (WMA) were referenced. We explore what has changed in the latest versions of the ethics documents adopted by CIOMS and WMA regarding the management of health data and human tissues, the appropriateness of their application in new forms of research and infrastructures as the proposed in the BRIDGE Health project, and whether society should be so concerned about this topic, in the digital era of social exchange.     

The role and responsibilities of witnesses in the informed consent process

Various mechanisms to ensure the protection of subjects in human research have been suggested, including the presence of witnesses during the informed consent process. For our commentary on the use of witnesses and their potential role and responsibility during the consent process, we start by addressing current guidelines for human subjects research in four Latin American countries. By using examples from public health research, we highlight some of the practical difficulties of using witnessed consent, from becoming a meaningless ritual at one end of the spectrum to the research subject feeling intimidated or coerced to participate at the other. Apart from these practical difficulties, it is unclear what responsibility the witness could and should have. We argue that there are important ethical questions about the role of witnesses that have not been adequately addressed in national and international regulations. This work addresses these gaps and argues that more debate is required to define the role and responsibilities of witnesses in the consent process, their training requirements and whether a universal legal requirement for witnessed consent, regardless of the type of research, is desirable.     

Developing the ethics of implementation research in health

Implementation research (IR) is growing in recognition as an important generator of practical knowledge that can be translated into health policy. With its aim to answer questions about how to improve access to interventions that have been shown to work but have not reached many of the people who could benefit from them, IR involves a range of particular ethical considerations that have not yet been comprehensively covered in international guidelines on health research ethics. The fundamental ethical principles governing clinical research apply equally in IR, but the application of these principles may differ depending on the IR question, context, and the nature of the proposed intervention. IR questions cover a broad range of topics that focus on improving health system functioning and improving equitable and just access to effective health care interventions. As such, IR designs are flexible and often innovative, and ethical principles cannot simply be extrapolated from their applications in clinical research. Meaningful engagement with all stakeholders including communities and research participants is a fundamental ethical requirement that cuts across all study phases of IR and links most ethical concerns. Careful modification of the informed consent process may be required in IR to permit study of a needed intervention. The risks associated with IR may be difficult to anticipate and may be very context-specific. The benefits of IR may not accrue to the same groups who participate in the research, therefore justifying the risks versus benefits of IR may be ethically challenging. The expectation that knowledge generated through IR should be rapidly translated into health policy and practice necessitates up-front commitments from decision-makers to sustainability and scalability of effective interventions. Greater awareness of the particular ethical implications of the features of IR is urgently needed to facilitate optimal ethical conduct of IR and uniform ethical review.     

The rationing agenda in the NHS. Rationing Agenda Group.

The Rationing Agenda Group has been founded to deepen the British debate on rationing health care. It believes that rationing in health care is inevitable and that the public must be involved in the debate about issues relating to rationing. The group comprises people from all parts of health care, none of whom represent either their group or their institutions. RAG has begun by producing this document, which attempts to set an agenda of all the issues that need to be considered when debating the rationing of health care. We hope for responses to the document. The next stage will be to incorporate the responses into the agenda. Then RAG will divide the agenda into manageable chunks and commission expert, detailed commentaries. From this material a final paper will be published and used to prompt public debate. This stage should be reached early in 1997. While these papers are being prepared RAG is developing ways to involve the public in the debate and evaluate the whole process. We present as neutrally as possible all the issues related to rationing and priority setting in the NHS. We focus on the NHS for two reasons. Firstly, for those of us resident in the United Kingdom the NHS is the health care system with which we are most familiar and most concerned. Secondly, focusing on one system alone allows more coherent analysis than would be possible if issues in other systems were included as well. Our concern is with the delivery of health care, not its finance, though we discuss the possible effects of changing the financing system of the NHS. Finally, though our position is neutral, we hold two substantive views--namely, that rationing is unavoidable and that there should be more explicit debate about the principles and issues concerned. We consider the issues under four headings: preliminaries, ethics, democracy, and empirical questions. Preliminaries deal with the semantics of rationing, whether rationing is necessary, and with the range of services to which rationing relates. Under ethics and democracy are the substantive issues of principle and theory. The final section deals with empirical questions and those relating to the practicality of various strategies.     

Assessment of the ethical review process in Sudan

The ethical review process is an important component of contemporary health research worldwide. Sudan started an ethical review process rather late in comparison with other countries. In this study, we evaluate the structure and functions of existing ethics review committees. We also explore the knowledge and attitudes of Sudanese researchers toward the ethical review process and their experience with existing ethics review committees. There are four ethics review committees in the country; these committees have no institutional regulations to govern their functions. Furthermore, Sudan also lacks national guidelines. Ethical reviews are carried out primarily for studies seeking international funding and are almost always governed by the funding agencies' requirements. Nearly half of respondents (46.3%) knew about the existence of research ethics committees in Sudan. Researchers reported a variety of experiences with the ethical review process; most of them were unable to define 'ethics committee'.